Karnataka High Court

The Deputy Chief Engineer vs Devegowda on 22 October, 2024

-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5876 OF 2016 (LAC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5875 OF 2016(LAC)
AND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5877 OF 2016 (LAC)

IN MFA No. 5876 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
(CONSTRUCTIONS),
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
MYSORE - 570 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. DEVEGOWDA,
SON OF LATE ANNAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,

2. APPAJI,
SON OF LATE ANNAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,

3. BORALINGEGOWDA,
SON OF LATE ANNAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,

4. BYRAPPA,
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
METAGALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK- 570 001.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE SUB-DIVISION,
KARNATAKA STATE- 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA D.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R5,
VIDE ORDER DATED 09/07/2021,
R1 TO R3 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R4)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 28.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.217/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, MYSORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED
COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO.5875 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
(CONSTRUCTIONS),
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
MYSORE - 570 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. BORELINGEGOWDA,
SON OF LATE ANNAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NO. 211,
4TH CROSS, KUMBARAKOPPAL,
MYSORE - 570 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE SUB-DIVISION,
KARNATAKA STATE - 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI. SRINIVASA D.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 28.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.218/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MYSORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED
COMPENSATION.

IN MFA No.5877 OF 2016
BETWEEN:

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
(CONSTRUCTIONS),
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
MYSORE - 570 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. SUBBEGOWDA,
SON OF LATE ANNAIAH,
METAGALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK - 570 001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE SUB - DIVISION,
KARNATAKA STATE- 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA D.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:28.04.2014 PASSED IN LAC NO.220/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MYSORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED
COMPENSATION.

THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
JUDGEMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
UMESH M. ADIGA, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

CAV COMMON JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

All these appeals arise out of the common judgment

and award dated 28.04.2014, passed in LAC.No.217/2010,

LAC.No.218/2010 and LAC.No.220/2009, passed by the

learned II Addl.Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mysuru,

(for short `Reference Court'). All these cases were clubbed

together and common evidence was recorded and common

judgment has been passed by the Reference Court.

Therefore all these appeals are taken up together and

common judgment is passed.

2. The respondent No.2/South Western Railway the

beneficiary of the land acquisition in LAC.No.217/2010,

LAC No.218/2010 and LAC No.220/2009, preferred these

appeals challenging the correctness of determination of

market value by the impugned judgment and decree

passed in the above said cases.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

3. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the

parties as per their ranks before the Reference Court.

4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsels

appearing for both the sides.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently

contended that the claim petitions filed under Section 18

of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are barred by time. They

ought to have filed petitions within 90 days from the date

of receipt of notice of award. But petitions were filed

during the year 2010. Therefore, reference applications

are filed beyond the period of limitation and hence the

Reference Court ought not to have considered the

petitions on the ground of limitation and it committed an

error in accepting the reference petitions without

considering the question of limitation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further

submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO

in short) awarded the compensation on the basis of sale

deed executed a year prior to issuance of notification
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act. The said land

is situated nearby Survey Nos.3 and 5 at Metagalli Village,

Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, which are the subject matter

in the present appeals. On the basis of the same,

compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/-

per acre. The Reference Court has not considered the said

sale deed. In the previous litigations in LAC.No.16/2013,

LAC.No.17/2013 and LAC.No.568/2007, the compensation

was awarded to Rs.13,00,000/-. But in these cases,

relying on Ex.P-22, which was executed on 03.03.2008,

enhanced the compensation and awarded the

compensation at the rate of Rs.128/- per sq.ft. which is

exorbitant. The sale statistics pertaining to the land

surrounding the acquired property long after acquisition

cannot be considered for assessment of the market value.

Therefore, the assessment of the market value by the

Reference Court is highly erroneous, arbitrary and

perverse. Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeals by

reconsidering the market value of the suit property in

question.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

7. Learned counsel for the respondents/land owners

submit that claimants filed applications under Section 18

of the Land Acquisition Act, to refer the matter to the Civil

Court for determination of the market value. The SLAO

did not refer the matter to the Civil Court for assessment

of the market value. Even after repeated enquiry with

SLAO and persuasion through concerned acquisition

authority, they did not refer the matter to the Civil Court.

Hence, claimants have filed applications under Section

18(3) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Karnataka

Amendment), before the Civil Court. The Civil Court after

hearing the parties allowed the said applications and

directed the concerned authority to refer the reference

applications to the Court for determination of the market

value. Therefore, it was total inaction of the acquiring

authority to refer the applications to the Civil Court for

determination of market value. The appellant and

competent authority who were responsible to acquire the

land had committed mistake in not referring the cases to

the Civil Court and they cannot take defence that claim
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

petitions are barred by time, which is not tenable.

Moreover, this point was considered by the Reference

Court while calling for the records from the acquisition

authority under Section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act.

That finding was not challenged by the appellant and again

they cannot challenge the same before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the claimants/land owners

have further submitted that claimants were examined as

PWs.1 to 3 and in their evidence, they have stated about

the situation of the land, development of the land, the

lands acquired in and around the lands in question, as well

as their market value. In the award, it is stated that,

except sale deed in respect of one of the properties i.e.,

Survey No.84, the other lands situated in and around the

acquired land have not been sold, therefore, the claimants

could not produce recent sale deeds in respect of sale of

the properties nearby the acquired lands. As such, the

claimants produced Ex.P-22, which was executed about

five years after the issuance of preliminary notification.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

The learned trial Judge considered these facts and

appreciated the price of the land at the rate of

10% p.a. for a period of five years. The said findings are

proper and correct and hence prayed for dismissal of the

appeals.

9. Learned advocate for the claimants further

submitted that the claimants produced the maps and

photographs to show that acquired property is situated

within the Municipal Corporation limit of Mysuru. They

have also produced copies of the sale deeds of the sites

which are situated nearby acquired property. The

guideline value of the property maintained by the Sub-

Registrar, Mysuru, is produced, which indicates that value

of the property per square foot situated in Metagalli main

road and cross road is Rs.200/- per sq.feet.

10. Learned advocate for the claimants further

submitted that the claimants have produced the copy of

the judgment passed in MFA.No.6083/2006 (LAC),

disposed of on 16.08.2006, in respect of acquisition of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

land situated in Metaganahalli. This Court in the said

judgment confirmed the judgment of the Reference Court

in assessing the market value at Rs.9,50,000/- per acre

and the land therein was acquired during the year 1990.

Therefore, the assessment of market value of the acquired

land on the basis of the documents by the trial Court is not

erroneous.

11. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted

that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that,

if the previous sale statistics are not available, then the

Court can rely on the sale deeds executed subsequent to

acquisition of the land, subject to condition that sale

transactions should be bona fide and by deducting 10% of

the property value per each year from the date of

acquisition till the date of the said sale. The learned trial

Judge followed the said principle of law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, which is not erroneous. With these

reasons, learned counsels for the respondents/land owners

prayed to dismiss the appeals.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

12. The learned Addl.Government Advocate

appearing for the State/SLAO supported the contentions of

the appellant and prayed for reducing the compensation

awarded by the Reference Court.

13. Following questions arise for our determination :

(i) Whether learned trial Judge is justified in
holding that the applications filed under Section 18 of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Karnataka Amendment),
to refer the cases to Civil Court for determination of
market value is not barred by time?

(2) Whether Reference Court is justified in
enhancing the market price ?

Our answer on above questions both in the

affirmative for the following reasons :

14. The appellant-respondent No.2 before the

Reference Court did not raise the question of limitation in

the statement of objections filed by them. The Reference

Court in issue No.1 has considered in detail about the

question of limitation. It is pertinent to note that

particulars of service of notice under
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act on the claimants,

date of service of notice and receipt of applications filed by

the land losers under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition

Act, are available with the concerned land acquisition

authority/SLAO. The SLAO has to produce the said

particulars before the Court to determine whether the

reference petitions filed under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act before the SLAO was within 90 days as

provided under Section 18(3) of Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (Karnataka Amendment) or not. The said particulars

were not produced by the SLAO and appellant before the

Reference Court. Without any such materials, appellant is

contending that reference application was barred by time.

There were no materials before the Reference Court to

hold that said applications were filed beyond time.

15. Exs.P-1 to P-3 are the reference applications filed

before the SLAO. In Ex.P-1, it is stated that sanction

letter (ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¥ÀvÀæ) was issued on 23.12.2005.

Thereafter, the claimant filed Writ Petition No.3403/2006.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

According to the orders passed in the writ petition on

28.03.2006, he received the compensation and filed the

reference application. But, the particulars stated above

are not clear in the said letters. Therefore, on the basis of

assumption and presumption, the Court cannot hold that

reference applications were not furnished to the SLAO

within 90 days.

16. The claimants filed reference applications before

the SLAO to refer the matter to the Civil Court for

determination of the market value and they were filed

during the year 2006, which is revealed in Exs.P-1 to P-3.

The concerned authorities did not refer the matter to the

Civil Court. Therefore, the claimants filed applications

under Section 18(3) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(Karnataka Amendment), before the Civil Court to direct

Deputy Commissioner to refer the case to the Court for

determination of the market value. The Civil Court after

considering such applications passed an order directing the

SLAO to refer the applications filed by the claimants to the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

Civil Court. The said order passed in LAC.No.290/2009,

dated 25.06.2010 is available in the Reference Court

records, wherein the learned trial Judge considered the

question of limitation. At that point of time also, it was

held that application was in time. The said order was not

at all challenged by the SLAO or appellant herein. Now

they cannot make grievance before this Court without

production of the relevant materials regarding dates stated

above to hold that such reference applications were filed

beyond the period of 90 days by the claimants.

17. The SLAO was responsible for causing delay in

referring the applications to the Civil Court for

determination of the market value. Only after the orders

passed by the Civil Court under Section 18(3) of Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (Karnataka Amendment), it appears

that they have referred the applications to the Civil Court

for determination of the market value. While condoning

the delay in filing the appeals, this Court passed order

directing the appellant to hold an enquiry against the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

wrong doer who is responsible for causing the delay in

filing these appeals and submit a report in this regard.

Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant in this regard is not at all acceptable.

18. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon

a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahadeo

Bajirao Patil -vs- State of Maharashtra and others1,

wherein it is held in Para-14 as below :

"14. We are here not concerned with the
correctness of the decision, but the fact remains that
having considered the claim of the appellant for
compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
rejected the claim. This does amount to the making
of an award, commonly described as "nil award". If
the appellant was aggrieved by such an award, it
was open to him to seek reference under Section 18
of the Act which the appellant actually did. We,
therefore, cannot hold that no award as envisaged by
Section 11 of the Act was declared on 29-8-1994,
since the claim of the appellant was considered and
was totally rejected. There was, therefore, no
question of giving any calculation of the manner in

1
(2005) 7 SCC 440
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

which the compensation was computed. Since, the
application under Section 18 was not filed within six
weeks of the receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of
the Act, the High Court did not commit any error in
holding that the application was barred by limitation.
It was not disputed before us that the Land
Acquisition Officer making a reference, or the Court
considering a reference under Section 18 of the Act
has no power of condonation of delay in making an
application under the aforesaid Section."

In the said case, the particulars are furnished to the

Court by the concerned SLAO and on that basis, High

Court held that application filed under Section 18(1) of

Land Acquisition Act by the concerned party before the

SLAO was delayed and it was beyond the period of six

weeks. Therefore, the High Court rejected the claim

petition on the point of limitation. But, in this case the

appellant failed to prove that the said reference application

was beyond the period of 90 days as per Section 18(3) of

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Karnataka Amendment).

Therefore the contention of appellant that reference
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

application filed was beyond period of limitation is not

tenable.

19. The claimants led oral evidence before the

Reference Court. In their evidence, they have stated in

detail about the location of the property acquired under

the notifications. They have stated about the

developments in and around the property acquired. In

their cross-examination, the said evidence was not

seriously disputed, but, it was suggested that the said

developments had taken place during the year 2005 and

2008. The claimants are land losers. They may not have

documents to place it before the Court regarding forming

of the layouts as stated in their evidence. The SLAO

could have secured these documents and placed on record

to show that the evidence given by the claimants were not

reliable and said layouts were formed long after the

acquisition of the property. Therefore, the evidence of

PW-1 was rightly accepted by the Reference Court and the

contention of the appellant that the said developments had
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

taken place subsequent to 2005 was not acceptable. We

do not find any reason to interfere in the said findings.

20. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is corroborated

by the document at Ex.P-27 - map prepared by Mysuru

City Municipal Corporation pertaining to revised

comprehensive development plan, which was approved by

the Government on 16.05.1997. Metagalli village is

coming within the jurisdiction of Mysuru City Municipal

Corporation as per Ex.P-27. The village map and portion

of the village map pertaining to Metagalli and

Maragodanahalli are produced at Exs.P-16 to P-18.

Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17 shows that property bearing Survey

Nos.3 and 5 are situated at the side of the main road.

Roads are situated on both side of the property. One of

such roads is said to be outer ring road which is abutting

both Survey Nos.3 and 5. The photographs are produced

at Exs.P-28 to P-30. According to the submission of

learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, the said

photographs are of the developed area near the acquired
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

property, which are not disputed. Exs.P-9 and P-10, which

are also the photographs, show that the said acquired land

is situated in the developed area.

21. The claimants have also produced the guideline

value obtained from the office of the Sub-Registrar at

Ex.P-23. The guideline value of the property during the

year 2001 to 2003-04 situated at Metagalli main road and

cross road was Rs.200/- per sq.ft. And during the year

2004-2005, it was revised to Rs.250/- per sq.ft. All these

facts indicate that the acquired property got NA potential

and they are situated in a fully developed area and it has

lost its nature as an agricultural land.

22. The claimants have produced Ex.P-22 i.e.,

registered sale deed in respect of property bearing Survey

No.5/1 of Metagalli, dated 3rd March 2008. The property

bearing Survey No.5/1, measuring 1 acre 17 guntas of

Metagalli village was sold for Rs.1,32,00,000/-. In the

cross-examination of claimants/PWs.1 to 3, it was not

brought out that Ex.P-22 is created or concocted sale deed
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

or nominal sale deed executed only to claim higher

compensation in respect of the acquired land. The said

land is part of Survey No.5. The learned trial Judge

considered Ex.P-22 and on that basis, determined the

market value of the property. The learned trial Judge also

reduced the value of the said land at the rate of 10% p.a.

and in total reduced 40% of the said sale consideration

and taken into account only 60% to determine the market

value of the acquired land which is situated adjacent to the

said land.

23. The learned trial Judge has discussed in detail

about accepting the said value of the property for

assessment of the market value. There is nothing wrong

in the said finding. In the award passed by the SLAO, it is

specifically mentioned that, except Survey No.84, no other

surrounding properties situated nearby the acquired

properties were sold, therefore, they could not collect sale

statistics in respect of nearby properties and he has

collected copy of the sale deed in respect of Survey No.84
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

of Metagalli village and on that basis, assessed the market

value at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre.

Looking to Exs.P-17 and P-18, which are not in

dispute, Survey No.84 is situated at the far distant place

from Survey Nos.3 and 5. Towards eastern and western

side of Survey Nos.3 and 5, main roads are situated and

one is said to be at outer ring road and both the properties

are in fully developed area. The appellant has not

produced any materials to show that even Survey No.84 is

situated in fully developed area as on the date of sale of

said land. Under these circumstances, the statistics relied

by the appellant to determine the market value of land in

question are not acceptable. The learned trial Judge has

properly appreciated the materials available on record and

rightly determined the market value which does not call

for interference.

24. In the appeal memo, the appellant has

contended that the Reference Court in LAC.No.16/2013,

LAC.No.17/2013 and LAC.No.568/2007 awarded
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- pr acre in respect of

similarly situated land and acquired under the same

notification. But the said awards were not produced

before the Reference Court while deciding the

compensation in LAC.Nos.220/2009, 217/2010 and

218/2010. The appellant has not produced the award

passed in LAC.No.568/2007 before this Court. It is

submitted that MFA was filed against the judgment passed

in LAC.No.568/2007, but the said judgment is also not

placed on record.

Along with citations, the appellant produced the copy

of judgment in LAC.No.327/2008 in respect of the

property bearing Survey No.70/1. In the said judgment, it

is not clear as to whether the said Survey No.70/1 is

pertaining to Metagalli village or some other place. The

award passed in the said case is also not placed on record.

On the basis of judgment passed in one of the land

acquisition cases produced at Ex.P-1 of that case, the

market value was determined. Without sufficient
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

materials, the Reference Court was not in a position to

consider the said judgment. The appellant herein

challenged the said judgment before this Court in

MFA.No.12213/2011 (LAC) and it was decided on

05.09.2013. This Court upheld the award passed by the

Reference Court without detailed discussion in respect of

assessment of the market value.

25. The appellant did not place the required

materials before the Reference Court while determining

the market value and now they cannot make grievance

before this Court that the Reference Court did not consider

the judgment passed in LAC.No.327/2008,

LAC.No.568/2007, LAC.No.16/2013 and LAC.No.17/2013.

26. It is also worth to note that SLAO did not enter

the witness box to rebut the evidence of PWs.1 to 3.

Having failed to prosecute effectively, now they are

contending that the determination of the market value by

the Reference Court is erroneous. The said contention

itself is not tenable.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

27. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

market value cannot be determined on the basis of sale

deed which was executed long after acquisition

notification. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation Limited -vs- Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel

and another2. Para-15 of the said judgment reads as

under :

"15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of
determining the market value by providing
appropriate escalation over the proved market value
of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by
sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no
evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions
or acquisitions of comparable lands in the
neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe
where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions
precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years,
that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be
unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land.
What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a
few years, may become unsafe and unreliable

2
(2008) 14 SCC 745
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

standard where the gap is larger. For example, for
determining the market value of a land acquired in
1992, adopting the annual increase method with
reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980
may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the
course of years, the `rate' of annual increase may
itself undergo drastic change apart from the
likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of
stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices
affecting the very standard of increase."

28. The facts of the above said case are different. In

the present case, the land was acquired for the purpose of

construction of goods terminal and not for any other

purpose. The said acquired land will be used without any

development. By the said acquisition, there may not be

any development in and surrounding area. As discussed

above, prior to acquisition of the land, surrounding area

was fully developed. There were residential layouts,

colleges, resorts etc. It appears that due to acquisition of

the property, the value of nearby land might not be

escalated. Appellant has not produced any evidence in this

regard. Hence it is difficult to believe that land value in
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

and around the acquired property was increased due to

acquisition and hence relying on the value of ExP22 was

not proper. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the

present case, sale deed at Ex.P-22 could be considered for

determination of the market value.

29. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon

the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranvir

Singh and another -vs- Union of India3, wherein it is held

at Para-29 as under :

"29. While adopting the said method, in our
opinion, the High Court committed manifest errors.
The market value of fully developed land cannot be
compared with wholly underdeveloped land although
they may be adjoining or situated at a little distance.
For determining the market value, it is trite, the
nature of the land plays an important role. "

30. In the present case, Ex.P-22 is not the sale deed

of any other land situated in any developed area. On the

contrary, it is part of Survey No.5 which is adjacent to

3
AIR 2005 SC 3467
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

acquired property and the said land is still an agricultural

land and it was sold as an agricultural land. The claimants

have also produced the sale deeds at Ex.P-20 and Ex.P-21

in respect of sites formed in a layout measuring 40 ft. x

60 ft. Both the lands were sold at the price of

Rs.4,80,000/-. If we consider the square feet, they were

sold at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq.ft. and both the said

sites were situated in Metagalli village. According to the

claimants, it was situated nearby their property. The

Reference Court did not consider the same because it was

site in a layout. The Reference Court considered the

agricultural land sold under Ex.P-22 for determination of

the market value. Therefore, the above said judgment in

no way helps the contention of the appellant.

31. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants

have relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Union of India -vs- Raj Kumar Baghal Singh
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

4
(Dead) Through Legal Representatives and others, .

Para-31 of the said judgment reads as under :

"31. In University of Agricultural Sciences -vs-
Balanagouda, Civil Appeals Nos.62-65 of 2000, order
dated 10.12.2003 (SC). whereupon Mr. Ranjit Kumar
placed strong reliance, the Court noticed that if the
acquisition is made for agricultural purpose, question
of development thereof would not arise; but if the
sale instance was in respect of a small piece of land
whereas the acquisition is for a large piece of land,
although development cost may not be deducted,
there has to be deduction for largeness of the land
and also for the fact that these are agricultural lands.
In that view of the matter, deduction at the rate of
33% made by the High Court was upheld. it may
not, therefore, be correct to contend, as has been
submitted by Mr Ranjit Kumar, that there cannot be
different deductions, one for the largeness of the
land and another for development costs".

32. In view of the above said discussions, the

findings of the Reference Court is proper and it does not

call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, we

proceed to pass the following :

4
(2014) 10 SCC 422
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42468-DB
MFA No. 5876 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 5875 of 2016
MFA No. 5877 of 2016

ORDER

The Appeals are dismissed with cost.

The common judgment and award dated

28.04.2014, passed by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil

Judge & CJM, Mysuru, in LAC.No.217/2010,

LAC.No.218/2010 and LAC.No.220/2009, is confirmed.

Registry is directed to transmit the records along